• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atty: Hobby Lobby Won't Offer Morning-After Pill

It is to be noted that most religious (especially Catholic) conservatives believe in both the ending of abortion and the increase in compassionate care for those who are living.
 
So lets get this straight. Conservatives bitch about abortions but then also bitch when the woman has to go on welfare to support the kid because she didn't get an abortion.

So what it comes down to is some conservatives will just bitch about anything.

Yes, because sex is a chosen behavior and it has consequences. In other words, you want someone to be your nanny.
 
The problem is conservatives bitching about abortions and then bitching about the welfare state that people use to support their children that cons don't want aborted . So cons bitch no matter what.

Oh so now we're on to abortions! Leftists cannot focus.
 
I had a rethink about this and while I support openness and government, what business is it of this government watchdog what might be cut from the budget? Isn't this the job of the opposition parties? If this watchdog is against wasted tax dollars I can certainly see it but I'm not certain an unelected official should have that power.


If you are fluent in French,. Spanish is much easier. Don't understand your reference to Alberta.




I'll trust the judgement of the Canadian government here.
It's their job, it';s the entire point of why it exists. It was created by the government for this exact purpose.
 
They are not doing something they are obligated to do for their employees but refuse due to their personal beliefs.

That doesn't force their faith on their workers.
 
No, what it comes down to is the fact that the idiots on the right aren't conservatives, they're neo-conservatives, which essentially translates into hyper-religious liberals.

Is this your own fanciful interpretation of what neo conservatism means or did you get that from Irving Kristol?
 
Is this your own fanciful interpretation of what neo conservatism means or did you get that from Irving Kristol?

Let's see, they're not fiscally responsible, which is one of the hallmarks of conservatism, in fact, they spend like drunken sailors, just like the liberals. They only vary in the source of their funding for their irresponsible spending. They also are not for small government, another hallmark of conservatism, but for uncontrolled government growth, just like liberals. They are absolutely not for keeping government out of people's lives, they want to control what you say, what you think, etc.

So it seems like a pretty good evaluation of the modern-day neo-conservative, wouldn't you say?
 
It was created to check out what the governments next budget might be and to be made aware of any possible cuts to spending? That seems a step too far.

I found the latest news on immigration and it seems like a good idea.Ottawa to play matchmaker for foreign workers - The Globe and Mail
"The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to provide independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation's finances, the government's estimates and trends in the Canadian economy; and upon request from a committee or parliamentarian, to estimate the financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction." Ironically it was the Conservatives who really pushed to have this created.
 
Translation: I ignore what I want, and hide behind my demand for facts as if everything I've been given is opinion.

Dude, get over your ego.

what ego, the eog of understand how rights, laws and facts work, giving examples of how they work and watching a hand full of people go but but but but but nu-huh LOL

also everything given to me that i called opinion was in fact 100% opinion ;)
ego has nothing to do with reality, laws, rights, freedoms and facts :shrug:
 
Let's see, they're not fiscally responsible, which is one of the hallmarks of conservatism, in fact, they spend like drunken sailors, just like the liberals. They only vary in the source of their funding for their irresponsible spending. They also are not for small government, another hallmark of conservatism, but for uncontrolled government growth, just like liberals. They are absolutely not for keeping government out of people's lives, they want to control what you say, what you think, etc.

So it seems like a pretty good evaluation of the modern-day neo-conservative, wouldn't you say?

No, it is completely at odds with reality. If they behave in the fashion you describe they are not neo-conservatives, they are also not conservatives. Best you should do some research on the subject before offering your opinions.
 
"The mandate of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is to provide independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation's finances, the government's estimates and trends in the Canadian economy; and upon request from a committee or parliamentarian, to estimate the financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction." Ironically it was the Conservatives who really pushed to have this created.

From what you described it is financial cuts, not costs, that the PBO wants. It doesn't seem to be under their jurisdiction on the face of it. Here's the story and it does seem that the Watchdog is overstepping boundaries. His own self importance is getting in the way. Budget watchdog takes feds to court - The Globe and Mail
 
No, it is completely at odds with reality. If they behave in the fashion you describe they are not neo-conservatives, they are also not conservatives. Best you should do some research on the subject before offering your opinions.

That's how the Republican party acts! And no, they are not conservatives, the neo-conservatives are actually expatriate Southern Democrats who abandoned the Democrat party in the 60s and 70s over issues like civil rights and abortion. They moved to the Republican party and have now largely taken over. Where have you been?
 
From what you described it is financial cuts, not costs, that the PBO wants. It doesn't seem to be under their jurisdiction on the face of it. Here's the story and it does seem that the Watchdog is overstepping boundaries. His own self importance is getting in the way. Budget watchdog takes feds to court - The Globe and Mail

The government has accused Mr. Page of operating outside his mandate as spending watchdog – an office the Conservatives established in 2006 as part of their promise to provide greater accountability to taxpayers.
That was why they wanted it in the first place he is not overstepping his boundaries, it's his job.
Opposition members say that means they are being asked to vote on budget bills without understanding the full ramifications of their decisions.
 
That was why they wanted it in the first place he is not overstepping his boundaries, it's his job.

Well apparently that will be up to the courts to decide but after reading the article I tend to side with the government. We'll see.
 
Well apparently that will be up to the courts to decide but after reading the article I tend to side with the government. We'll see.

I take the side of the opposition, how are they suppose to know what they are voting for?
 
That's how the Republican party acts!

That's how both parties act, and that's also true of political parties in many of the democracies. Politicians want to get elected and bribing people with their own money seems to be the easiest way.
And no, they are not conservatives, the neo-conservatives are actually expatriate Southern Democrats who abandoned the Democrat party in the 60s and 70s over issues like civil rights and abortion. They moved to the Republican party and have now largely taken over. Where have you been?

I've been reading.

neoconservatism (political philosophy) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
 
I take the side of the opposition, how are they suppose to know what they are voting for?

If they don't know what they are voting for than they should npot vote. But it seems like it hasn;t reached that stage at this point.

Recall when Nancy Pelosi said that the House would have to pass Obamacare before they could read it? I certainly don't want that to happen in Canada so if that ever becomes the case I'd be with you 100%
 
If they don't know what they are voting for than they should npot vote. But it seems like it hasn;t reached that stage at this point.

Recall when Nancy Pelosi said that the House would have to pass Obamacare before they could read it? I certainly don't want that to happen in Canada so if that ever becomes the case I'd be with you 100%
Well most of the departments aren't reporting what they are cutting so the opposition can't question it, and they can't vote on or propose changes.
 
Oh, guru, let me and any other person who dares question your knowledge of rights bow down before you. Roll eyes.

what ego, the eog of understand how rights, laws and facts work, giving examples of how they work and watching a hand full of people go but but but but but nu-huh LOL

also everything given to me that i called opinion was in fact 100% opinion ;)
ego has nothing to do with reality, laws, rights, freedoms and facts :shrug:

Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express
 
Oh, guru, let me and any other person who dares question your knowledge of rights bow down before you. Roll eyes.



Sent from my Nokia Lumia 920 using Board Express

so you have nothing? nothing to back up your false claim? LMAO weird :shrug:
and i dont have a vast knowledge of them, but i understand this just like the court does and has to similar cases
let me know when you have something factual to back up anything you said ;)
 
For decades, the Supreme Court has understood the Free Exercise clause to protect religious individuals and organizations from secular laws that would "substantially burden" their free exercise of religion. Courts have applied a multi-part legal test that, first, looks to whether the law in question is a neutral, generally-applicable law, not one specifically aimed at religious expression. Assuming that a law is neutral in its application, courts then ask two related questions: does the law's burden on religion serve a "compelling government interest," and is it "narrowly tailored" or the least restrictive means to furthering the government's interest? In sum, even a neutral law may not substantially burden religious exercise unless that burden is the least restrictive means necessary to serving a compelling government interest.

The birth control mandate does not pass this test.

First, assuming that the new rule is a neutral, generally-applicable regulation, it undoubtedly imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. On penalty of fine and federal sanction, the birth control mandate demands that many religious institutions do precisely what their religion forbids them from doing. The Catholic Church, to take an obvious example, requires that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception." A papal encyclical on the subject prohibits "direct interruption of the generative process already begun," "sterilizations," and "any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specially intended to prevent procreation…" But the HHS mandate demands that Catholic schools, charities, and hospitals, for example, must provide their employees with health insurance plans that pay for contraception, sterilization, and even abortifacient drugs such as Plan B – a demand that effectively forces Catholics to violate either their conscience and their religion, or federal law. As Bishop Kevin C. Rhoades observed, "This is really an unprecedented rule from the federal government attempting to force religious institutions – and others, not just institutions but also individuals—to do things that we consider immoral; things that we consider sinful. In this case, that's providing, through our healthcare for our employees, contraception, sterilization, and even drugs that cause early abortion."14

The Administration's contention that the mandate's burden does not violate the Free Exercise clause because the Catholic churches themselves, for example, would likely be exempt from the rule is a legal non-starter. Catholics, like those of many faiths, exercise and manifest their religious beliefs and callings in a variety of ways, including charity work, social service, education, medical outreach and counseling. The Supreme Court has already rejected drawing an artificial distinction between a church-proper and a church's mission, as if acts pursuant to the religious mission were beyond the First Amendment's protection. In 1987, the Court recognized that "t is a significant burden on a religious organization to require it, on pain of substantial liability, to predict which of its activities a secular court will consider religious. The line is hardly a bright one, and an organization might understandably be concerned that a judge would not understand its religious tenets and sense of mission. Fear of potential liability might affect the way an organization carried out what it understood to be its religious mission."15

Second, a neutral rule may substantially burden religious exercise and pass constitutional muster, but only if the government can show that the rule is the least restrictive means to accomplishing a compelling government interest. That is not the case here, however, where the Administration's only interest, according to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, appears to be in "provid[ing] women with greater access to contraception."16 Hardly compelling. Today, contraception for both men and women is readily available for those who want it at the local drug store, and it is commonly covered or subsidized by health insurance plans across the country. The statement released by HHS even acknowledges, "birth control… is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women."17 There are few, if any, barriers for women who want birth control. Thus, the Administration's alleged interest in "greater access to contraception" essentially means that it wants to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients – "free" in the sense that some third party pays for it, whether they want to or not. Such an interest is far from meeting the established definition of "compelling."

Of course, even if providing free contraceptives to those who want them was a compelling government interest, the Obama Administration has not employed the least restrictive means to achieving that end. For starters, if the government wants to distribute free birth control, it could do so on the taxpayer's dime, and use tax dollars to pay for birth control to be distributed by federal agencies such as HHS or the FDA. Under this approach, no religious organization would be compelled to violate its creed or conscience to provide pharmaceuticals or procedures that it believes to be immoral – and so it is less restrictive than the President's mandate.

The Birth Control Mandate is Unconstitutional


So, the government is not making a compelling case, but rather IMHO, relying on appointed hacks on the Supreme Court like Justice Sotomayer to be in place to slap down challenges whether they are within her discretionary authority or not.

The birth-control coverage mandate violates the First Amendment's bar against the "free exercise" of religion. But it also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That statute, passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. It was enacted in response to a 1990 Supreme Court opinion, Employment Division v. Smith.

That case limited the protections available under the First Amendment's guarantee of free exercise of religion to those government actions that explicitly targeted religious practices, by subjecting them to difficult-to-satisfy strict judicial scrutiny. Other governmental actions, even if burdening religious activities, were held subject to a more deferential test.

The 1993 law restored the same protections of religious freedom that had been understood to exist pre-Smith. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act states that the federal government may "substantially burden" a person's "exercise of religion" only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and "is the least restrictive means of furthering" that interest.



The law also provides that any later statutory override of its protections must be explicit. But there is nothing in the ObamaCare legislation that explicitly or even implicitly overrides the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The birth-control mandate proposed by Health and Human Services is thus illegal.

Rivkin and Whelan: Birth-Control Mandate—Unconstitutional and Illegal - WSJ.com

So here we get the hurdle that HHS, and Obama obviously ignored.

1. It has to be in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.

2. Must be the "Least restrictive" in its approach

Neither hurdle is achieved in this overstep by this Government. However, I don't expect that either the administration really care if they are following the Constitution or not.
 
I have 2 statements to make here:

1) Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom to impose your religious views on others. Your freedom of religion stops where my own freedom of religion begins.

2) If Hobby Lobby wants to pay 1.3 million in fines per day, then by all means let them. It will help reduce our deficit a tiny bit. Thank you, Hobby Lobby, for volunteering to pay a little more.

Article is here
.


I for one don't think a person's work place or the nations tax dollars should pay for employee's emergency birth control. While I do stand strong on the issue of the morning after pill being morally wrong, that isn't what this is about. We are not cradle to grave opressed socialists. We are strong independent Americans that shouldn't rely on our employers for emergency bc.
 
Back
Top Bottom